The capturing of animals for pelts and damage control is a long-practiced art. Through the years there have been attempts to make trapping devices more selective and humane. Several states and countries have now outlawed steel leg hold traps, and pressure continues to grow for more states to do the same. This humane selective foot snare device will be a valuable tool in capturing a wide variety of animals worldwide. Animal foot snare traps commonly operate via a triggering device to hold and then release a tensioned, trap-activating spring. This foot snare is a most humane, target specific leg-hold capturing device, easy to set with spring powered pan tension or other triggered mechanism devices, incorporated with snare stops, link chain and breakaway locks to keep non-target catches to a minimum. It can be constructed out of a wide variety of materials such as steel, aluminum, plastic, and rope-like material.
Every year hundreds of millions of dollars are lost to the livestock and agricultural industries due to animal predation and crop damage. A study conducted by the National Wildlife Research Center from May 2004-July 2006 (Journal of Wildlife Management, 73 (8)) compared foot injuries from different types of snares, with varying cables and breakaway means. Animals such as wolves, are captured, radio collared and released for the purpose of monitoring pack movement. The main capturing method that is available at this time is steel traps. An improvement is needed to inflict minimal foot damage, maintain foot blood circulation, in combination with the reduction of swelling, for a quicker animal recovery. Also, if non-target animals such as domestic dogs are captured, they may be released generally unharmed. Avoiding capture of larger animals, such as grizzlies, moose, elk and livestock, is a challenge when trapping for wolves. In many cases steel traps cannot be set at a kill site due to bears being present, making it difficult to capture the predating animals.
Feral hogs are another species causing millions of dollars in domestic and agricultural damage every year. The current capturing methods are either cage traps or neck snares. Feral hogs are educated quickly to cage traps and in many cases will refuse to enter. Neck snares are somewhat effective, but when set under fence lines, the fence in many cases sustains damage once the hog is captured. Neck snares also are not particularly target specific. Several states have outlawed steel traps and control tools are limited. Applications are needed for both animal damage control and private trapping endeavors in areas where currently applied control methods are restricted or limited.
Certain related art patent references disclose various types of ensnaring devices utilizing a snare cable and a one-way locking mechanism, for example a cam lock, such as: U.S. Pat. No. 6,032,405 to Rose (“'405 patent”), U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,578,894 and 4,761,911 to Butera (“'894 patent” and “'911 patent”, respectively), U.S. Pat. No. 2,474,933 to Dean (“'933 patent”), U.S. Pat. No. 2,683,952 to Armstrong (“'952 patent”), U.S. Pat. No. 4,083,142 to Gregerson (“'142 patent”), U.S. Pat. No. 1,738,907 to Kleffman (“'907 patent”) and U.S. Pat. No. 2,275,737 to Dacey (“'737 patent”). None of these cited references provide for the swiveling cable pulley and snare attachment means which are features of the present invention, allowing the present invention to engage with and disengage from a snare triggering mechanism. As well, none of these cited references provide the feature of a kinkless-chain and breakaway means, such as an S-hook to allow the escape of a non-targeted animal as in the present invention, except for a breakaway feature in the '405 patent. However, the '405 patent does not include a link chain, or require a trigger mechanism directly and permanently engaging the snare, and as such would not teach the inclusion of the feature of the present invention to allow the snare to disengage from a trigger mechanism upon capture of the targeted animal.
Some related art references utilize only the force of the trapped animal against the snare cable to tighten, or cinch, the snare noose whereas others incorporate a spring-loaded trigger mechanism to close and tighten the noose, such as the '405 patent, the U.S. Pat. No. 2,168,132 to Marshall (“'132 patent”), U.S. Pat. No. 2,592,390 to Burt (“'390 patent”), U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,329,805 and 4,286,404 to Novak (“'805 patent” and “'404 patent”, respectively), U.S. Pat. No. 3,060,623 to Aldrich (“'623 patent”), U.S. Pat. No. 4,581,844 to Torkko (“'844 patent”), U.S. Pat. No. 4,751,790 to Thomas (“'790 patent”), U.S. Pat. No. 4,920,690 to Olecko (“'690 patent”) and U.S. Pat. No. 5,675,928 to Tattrie (“'928 patent”). Again, none of these cited references provide for the swiveling cable pulley and snare attachment means features of the present invention, allowing the present invention to engage with and disengage from a triggering mechanism; and none of these newly cited references provide the feature of a kinkless link chain and breakaway means, such as an Shook to allow the escape of a non-targeted animal as in the present invention. As well, the '911 patent, '933 patent, '405 patent, '132 patent, '737 patent, '390 patent, '404 and '805 patents, '623 Aldrich, '844 Tarkko, '690 patent, and '928 patent do not have the feature of an anchoring device end of the present invention, to anchor or tether the released snare.
None of the cited devices herein have the feature of a deer stop to prevent the capture of a deer-like animal. Therefore, as noted, none of the references contain every feature of the present invention, and none of these reference in combination disclose or teach every feature of the present invention.
The foregoing and other objectives, advantages, aspects, and features of the present invention will be more fully understood and appreciated by those skilled in the art upon consideration of the detailed description of a preferred embodiment, presented below in conjunction with the accompanying drawings.